More like this
Historians join attack on Starkey’s riot race claims
Academics say his analysis of the UK riots would ‘disgrace a first-year history undergraduate’
More than 100 academics and students have signed an open letter condemning TV historian David Starkey for comments he made about the UK riots and race on a recent BBC Newsnight programme, denouncing his argument as "evidentially insupportable and factually wrong".
Starkey caused controversy earlier this month by responding to a question about the cause of recent rioting by saying: "What has happened is that a substantial section of the chavs... have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion."
Commentators lined up afterwards to call Starkey a racist and announce his career was over. Now a group of his fellow historians and academics have sent an open letter to the Times Higher Education magazine in an effort to distance themselves from Starkey. Among them are academics from Cambridge and the London School of Economics – two institutions Starkey taught at.
The signatories say Starkey's "crass generalisations about black culture and white culture as oppositional, monolithic entities demonstrate a failure to grasp the subtleties of race and class that would disgrace a first-year history undergraduate. In fact, it appears to us that the BBC was more interested in employing him for his on-screen persona and tendency to make comments that viewers find offensive than for his skills as a historian".
Starkey's TV manner also comes under fire: "Instead of thoughtfully responding to criticism, he simply shouted it down; instead of debating his fellow panellists from a position of knowledge, he belittled and derided them... displaying some of the worst practices of an academic."
But it was the BBC's decision to call Starkey a 'historian' that was the group's key frustration. "Starkey has professed himself to be a historian of elites," the letter reads. "His academic work has never focused on race and class." Broadcasters should "think carefully" before inviting an academic unfamiliar with the subject matter, the letter continued.
The academics concluded with a plea: "We would ask that he is no longer allowed to bring our profession into disrepute by being introduced as 'the historian, David Starkey' when commenting on issues outside his fields of expertise." ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
What seems particularly worrying to me (especially about the ensuing comments) is that few fail to acknowledge that Mr Starkey's use of the term 'BLACK' on this show was not just politically incorrect, it is unacceptable language use for anyone who is educated.
I mean, since when did the word BLACK become synonymous to violent, nihilistic and gangster?
I mean, am I living in some kind of sheltered bubble?
I suppose we can say that the European football hooligans, Eastern block skin heads, American mobsters aka the italian mafia and Nordic vikings were all of African heritage (sorted in chronological order of relevance for the 'pedantics' amongst us )
And I have to add, that the fact that this goes unquestioned by many of the commentators is equally as shocking as the man's remarks and perhaps shows how deep such sentiments truly run in western society.
Anyway, in light of his prominence and his position as a role model in society, I think the outcries on his remarks are rather tame - and Mr Starkey should count himself fortunate that the minority group that is victim to his latest 'faux pas' does not hold the strings of power - for he would surely end up the British Mel Gibson or Isaiah Washington.
Well I think the Miseries are wrong.
They say David Starkey is not a historian but undergraduates and failed unknown and rarely published lecturers have appointed themselves the new Islington Champagne Socialists of History. I guess we know what they'd do with Sarkey if they were in charge - eh shades of Mubarak or Gaddafi here 'me thinks'.
I thought getting a group of so called so called historians together was aptly called a 'MISERY' because of their petty jealousies but that would be placing too high a status on that buch of misers of democracy.
In a democracy we are allowed to speak our minds on TV just as I think their chums can go out and riot and join gangs etc etc and they can write rubbish to newspapers (I hope the undergraduates got a boost in marks from their lovely lecturers) for signing the letter oops no they thought of it themselves!.
I have never known anyone sensible in the UK deny the existence of gangs and gang violence so the miseries or misers of democracy are a first in my view.
I like people to feel free to speak without being silenced by those that shout loudest so that is why I am TRYING TO SHOUT NOW AS ISLINGTON HISTORICAL SOCIALISTS UNDERSTAND YOU THEN.
Mr Starkey sounds like a racist.
It is really all about who has the jobs and can live comfortably.
Pretty obvious from the lesser brains, like mine, that that is NOT happening.
When the powers confront the issues head on then these matters might improve..............and i will bet the powder keg is still there.
This episode, more than many similar situations, indicates the rigid bias & proselytizing nature of so called liberal & enlightened pedagogues! If you disagree with their views --- & dare to express such disagreements --- You're torn to shreds on the altar of their political correctness! Is nobody allowed an opposing opinion on class, race, cultural & man-made global warming issues? Are we all to be cloned by these clowns?
Professor Starkey speaks the truth as he sees it through his perspicacious eyes. Every sucessful institution has such a person on board. Peter Drucker, management legend. The real problem is unemployed youth to such an extent that it caused a riot, John Wycliffe and the Wars of the Roses. Let us hope that this Prime Minister wakes up before he makes the same mistakes as Richard II. Mr. Cameron in the regal position will not get pokers up the bum but Prof. Starkey might ponder the notion on the grounds of merit.
Describing this oafish racist as an "academic" is typical of the BBC as a whole. His weekly appearances on "The Moral Maze" typified his bigoted smugness. I trust he will be shunned by the BBC in future - but there's no chance of that while fellow racist bigot Mark Thompson heads the Beeb.
Professor Starkey has made a valid social point badly. Being black is a disadvantage in landing a UK job. The result is high unemployment for blacks and a lot of black rioters. The error is pointing the finger at Professor Starkey not because his remarks identify racial content but rather that the response is to rack him Tudor style which is his subject. A vast segment of society has been trashed with no hope so they riot. A huge proportion are black. Lets crucify anybody who utters the truth and bless those in control who cannot organize the nation mostly because they simply do not care if a huge slice of the population has to be trashed in order for them to be re-elected.
The attackers are apologists and PC. The FACT is that the black gang culture has spread nefariously helped by (c)rap and hip hop "music". Many white youth speak exactly like black gang youth. This is not a slur on black / brown / non-white people, it is simply one bad element of society which just coincidentally happens to have arisen and spread in Jamaica then US cities and then the past 10 years over here. It could have originated and spread any where, any way.
It seems that some people are highly sensitive, unnecessarily so.
Er...excuse me. David Starkey was for years on the Moral Maze, which was also nothing to do with history. And as for "it appears to us that the BBC was more interested in employing him for his on-screen persona and tendency to make comments that viewers find offensive than for his skills as a historian" - well, what do you know? That's just why he was co-opted onto the Moral Maze, to be 'Mr Nasty'. And as for "Instead of thoughtfully responding to criticism, he simply shouted it down", I suggest these 'historians' take a look again at the recording. It was Starkey who could hardly make himself heard because he was talked and shouted over by the others in the studio. These 'academics' who have penned this letter look to me like a bunch of jerks. Who do they think they are? The whole argument is based on one word used by Emily Maitlis, the word 'historian'. As for David Starkey not being qualified to comment, well here's news for you 'historian' signatories, you also are unqualified to go onto Newsnight and say anything as a historian. Historians have nothing to say about current affairs; all current affairs are outside their fields of expertise. So the only consistent position that these 'historians' could take would be for the BBC never to have a historian on a current affairs programme. This letter is dressed up as an academic thing, but underneath it's a political action arising out of envy and spite.